If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

Just a reminder that the original topic was this:This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 12-09-2004 03:56 AM

robinrohan You do even see the contradiction in terms here do you? Really? Perhaps you would like to present the proof.This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-09-2004 06:27 AM

---

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."-

Then, if that is the case, why can the naturalistic beginning of the universe not be uncaused? If god requires no cause, is it not possible that there are other things that don't? Given that, is it not possible that the universe itself is such a thing?

What Crashfrog said is essentially what I would have.

My ideas are as follows:1. The Big Bang was the first event in space and time.2. Something triggered it.3. That which triggered it is not in space and time.4. Saying that an event might not have a cause is like saying that 2+2 might not make 4, or that a statement that contradicts itself might be true.5. As regards formalism versus common sense: It is true that common sensical notions about the world sometimes turn out to be false (quantum physics, for example), but that does not mean that quantum physics violates some basic logical principle. It's perfectly logical, or it wouldn't be true (this is "formalism," which I accept). It's just that we can't visualize the situation in the quantum world. It's our imaginative sense-functions that are limited here, not our logical abilities.6. Therefore, the provability of whether or not there is a God and the provability of whether or not there are leprechauns are not on the same level. There might be leprechauns but there is no reason to suppose there are any, not a shred of evidence. The First Cause, however, assuming the validity of the Big Bang theory, is another matter entirely. The Red Shift, the background radiation, and all the rest of this theory point to the conclusion that there is or was a First Cause--i.e., that the universe came into being.7. One does not have to call the First Cause "God," of course, but it fits the definition--something outside space and time that causes the universe to come into being. Many religious philosophers from many different religions have said for thousands of years that God is in a sense "nothing" and in a sense does not "exist." What they mean is not that there is no God, but that God does not exist in space and time, and our imaginations cannot visualize anything else.

That which is the First Cause would have to be something that has always existed. The universe has not always existed.

But why would the natural laws that govern the universe not have always existed? Perhaps the universe is simply an inevitable result of those laws.To put it another way... we know for sure that the universe came into being, and that there are natural laws. Because, y'know... check it out. *looks around* We don't know for sure if there's anything else.So how does it make sense to go throwing on extra ingredients that we don't know for sure even exist?

We don't freaking know this for a fact. Assumption. Based on an assumption and limited, if not wrong, fact. How the hell did you relate the two? Quantum physics ain't common sense. Let's assume for a moment that you are right. Can't I just as easily say that leprechauns have always existed, that they exist out of space time, and that they "caused" the universe? I propose that we call your imaginary first cause "immaterial pink unicorn."You still haven't answered my previous request. Please show me why you think all things must have causes?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Says you, but uncaused events occur in this universe all the time. The "law" of cause and effect might simply be an illusion.

We are dealing with 2 phenomena: that which comes into being and that which has always existed. That which comes into being had something outside of it which triggered it into being. It could not trigger itself because it didn't exist before it came into being.
This is my explanation of why everything that has not always existed has a cause.The universe is a phenomenom that came into being, assuming the validity of the Big Bang theory.That which has always existed needs no cause because it never came into being.As far as calling the First Cause a leprechaun or whatever--you can call it what you like. But that is meaningless. We were under the assumption that the concept of "deity" is not the same concept as the concept of "leprechaun." Your point is that you might as well believe in one as the other. My point is that the definition of "deity" includes the idea of being a First Cause. This is not the case with leprechauns. This is why your comparison does not hold.

Robinrohan, I'm afraid that you are missing the central point. An eternally extant thing has no cause. A spontaneous event can also be said to have no cause (in out context). Why do you claim that one can occur but not the other?The reason you give is that the eternally existing thing simply does not require a cause, while everything else does. That is a special pleading, and it is simply a wrong way of thinking.You can certainly believe what you want, but you should at least admit that you hold illogical, contradictory beliefs.

What is illogical is to say that there can be such a thing as a "spontaneous event."What reason is there to assume that such an illogical event could happen?There's no "special pleading" here, because a spontaneous event makes no sense whereas my scenario does make sense.The flaw in the traditional first cause argument was the idea that the universe was assumed by first cause advocates to be created, and naturally people would not accept that. The question that destroyed the argument was "Who Made God?" There was no reason to say God was the First Cause, since there was no reason to suppose there was a first cause.Then along comes Big Bang, and now the First Cause argument makes perfect sense. Now we know that the universe did not always exist.
That makes all the difference in the world for the First Cause idea.

Are you referencing quantum events such as radioactive decay? This gives rise to the interesting notion of uncaused but lawful and how does that "lawful" predictability happen. That is to say, no idea which atom will decay, seems to be no reason, and yet the rate of decay is constant.lfen

Logical fallacy : Appeal to IgnorancePremise: the big bang had a cause
Observation: all events are caused
Conclusion: The big bang had a cause.Refutation: The big bang may be the result of a dimentional mebrane from one dimention colliding with another dimentional membrane .
The Big Bang may be an extention of the natural state of things. Since there is no knowlege of conditions prior to the Big Bang it is a assumption that it was caused.Your argument fallacy is what as known as Appeal to Ignorance.

"dimensional membrane"?? You appear to be multiplying assumptions.